Legalized marijuana wafts toward Palo Alto ballot

Ballot initiative to allow three pot dispensaries gathers needed signatures, heads to City Council

Marijuana dispensaries could sprout at up to three Palo Alto locations, if the City Council or voters were to approve an ordinance legalizing medical marijuana within city limits.

A citizens group has gathered more than enough signatures to put the issue on the city ballot, City Clerk Donna Grider told the Weekly. The success of the signature drive means the council must either adopt the proposed ordinance or bring it to the voters some time next year.

Initiative supporters argue in the petition that legalizing and taxing marijuana dispensaries would be both humane and financially lucrative. The proposed ordinance would "allow our neighbors, who are seriously or terminally ill, to legally and safely obtain marijuana near their home, if they have the approval of their physician," the petition states.

"Terminally ill patients, many of whom are elderly, are faced with a Hobson's choice of buying marijuana illegally or traveling many miles to a city that has a dispensary," the petition reads.

The drive is led by former Ronald Reagan adviser Thomas Gale Moore and Cassandra Chrones Moore, a policy analyst at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Under the proposed ordinance, operators of marijuana dispensaries would pay $10,000 for their permits and pay a 4 percent tax for every dollar of their gross receipts. The dispensaries would also have to pay $10,000 every year to have their permits renewed.

Proponents note in their petition that San Jose's medical-marijuana ordinance brought the city $290,000 in revenues in its first month and urge Palo Alto officials to pass a similar measure.

"We have a choice: capture these taxes for our city or continue to lose them to neighboring municipalities," the petition states. "The ordinance will tax marijuana sales and place the revenue in the city's general fund."

A May budget addendum from the San Jose deputy city manager estimated that San Jose would bring in nearly $4 million a year from marijuana taxes and fees.

Supporters of the new ordinance had collected 6,341 signatures, 4,859 of which were verified as valid, Grider said. That is far more than the 4,356 needed to place an item on the ballot.

If the council decides not to adopt the ordinance outright, it would have to decide whether to place it on the ballot in June or November 2012, City Attorney Molly Stump told the Weekly. Stump said her office is in the process of crafting a recommendation, which the council is tentatively scheduled to consider on Sept. 19. She declined to say whether staff favors adopting the ordinance or placing on the ballot.

Pot dispensaries have traditionally been a tough sell for Palo Alto's elected leaders. In 1997, the City Council responded to proposed cannabis club by swiftly and unanimously passing an ordinance outlawing such facilities in the city.

The current City Council, meanwhile, has been more ambivalent on the issue. Last October, the council briefly discussed Proposition 19, a state initiative that would have legalized and regulated marijuana sales, and agreed to not take a stance on it. While Gail Price advocated backing Proposition 19, which California voters weighed in on last November, and Karen Holman urged the city to discuss the initiative more thoroughly, other council members felt the issue is one of "personal choice." Councilman Larry Klein said the council should not spend time on the issue, a stance that the council majority quickly endorsed.

Peter Allen, a political strategist who is working with the campaign to allow the dispensaries, hopes things will be different this time around. Allen said the group chose Palo Alto as the potential site for new dispensaries because of the famously progressive values of its voters. Last year, more than half of the city's voters supported Proposition 19. The initiative ultimately lost, with 46.5 percent of the state's voters supporting it.

"We felt Palo Alto would be a jurisdiction that would be open to something like this," Allen said. "People in Palo Alto tend to support individual rights and have progressive values."

The proposed ordinance includes a host of provisions limiting the location and hours of operation for the new dispensaries. These facilities would not be allowed in residential areas or near schools, parks or daycare centers. Their hours of operation would be limited to between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Each dispensary would have to operate as a not-for-profit basis and would be comprised of at least four employees, all of whom have to be at least 21 years old. The applicant must include a management member with at last 12 months of experience in a California marijuana cooperative or dispensary. No one under the age of 18 would be allowed into the facilities.

The dispensaries would also be required to keep registers of all employees and qualified patients, whose records would be sorted by identification numbers to protect their privacy.

Allen said his group hopes the council takes a stronger position this time around, approving the ordinance and saving the city the costs of holding an election.

"The City Council had instituted the ban without going to the voters," Allen said. "It would make sense for them to come full circle and adopt the ordinance outright."

Those who smoke marijuana will come to Palo Alto from nearby towns to buy their drugs. They will drive while high and threaten the safety of our community. Driving under the influence of marijuana is dangerous as it slows down reaction time, just like driving while drunk or while talking on one's cell phone.

Also, a 4% tax is too low. If we were to adopt this measure, why not make it a 20% tax and use half of that to pay for police enforcement of drug abuse, prevention of driving while high, and increased education for students about the health risks of smoking.

Posted by Mary Jane
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 8, 2011 at 10:41 am

These dispensaries would be for the purpose of providing medical assistance to those in need of it. These fears of not wanting to add a drug blemish to Palo Alto's seemingly pristine appearance or that they would wreak havoc and become a safety issue are ridiculous and speak poorly of Palo Alto's image -- not allowing people to get the medicine that they deserve for such trivial reasons is really sad. The people of Palo Alto have to wake up and -frankly- smell the marijuana; while the drug's reputation precedes itself, it is time to realize that it has modern medicinal and healing purposes and could provide much needed revenue for the town.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 10:50 am

No, no, no, no, no.

I do not want the smelly stuff being sold, smoked or encouraged anywhere near where I live or frequent. If it really is that medically necessary then they ought to imbibed it in specially designed hospital facilities in recognized health facilities. Not anywere near the public, just like other toxic treatments for cancer, etc.

And if it is the revenue that Palo Alto city council wants, how about giving us some decent sales tax $$ from what we buy anyway from Mountain View or Menlo Park. A decent sized grocery store would be a good start. Next would be some big box stores on Charleston near OSH so that Palo Alto could get sales tax from kids clothes, household items, etc. that is presently going out of town.

And as for the signatures, they were coerced by rude people who misled the poorly informed shoppers who had no idea what their signature was for. It was not for helping the sick. It was for legalizing pot houses. Shame on anyone who signed because they didn't ask more questions.

I hope that everyone knows what they will be voting for and that there will be no more cons!

Posted by Barron Park
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 8, 2011 at 10:59 am

I understand, in the abstract, apprehension that arises regarding driving safety, crime, etc. And those may have a basis in fact. But if that is your concern, it seem essential to bring some data to the table, rather than just a gut feeling.

There are now hundreds of such facilities around the country, some in operation for a handful of years. And the controversy is not new. I assume that if there are community problems that often result, those are well-documented. What is known?

Absent such data, it seems the proposal is to allow a new class of business activity that meet a customer need, and that will pay taxes that support city services. For those who question the morality of the "customer need", I would only note that this would not be the first, or worst, class of business whose moral premise I might not personally endorse. Unless truly repugnant, for me that is not a valid criteria for the city.

Posted by Vote-NO
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:02 am

> Under the proposed ordinance, operators of marijuana dispensaries
> would pay $10,000 for their permits and pay a 4 percent tax for
> every dollar of their gross receipts. The dispensaries would
> also have to pay $10,000 every year to have their permits renewe

Interesting. If this substance ("pot") is supposed to be only for medicinal purposes, why would there need to be any reason to burden the "down and out", the "poor", "the indigent", who can not afford traditional medical care, or medicines, with these exorbitant fees and taxes, when these people can not afford it.

But, if the point is to sell medical "pot" to every Tom-Dick-and-Harry on the block .. then giving the City a "cut of the take" is no doubt a good deal in the mind of these "dealers".

Posted by tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:28 am

Dear Posters of Previous Comments,

Some of you are making blatantly false claims about cannabis. You have been purposely misinformed with old political propaganda. Please educate yourselves before weighing in on important issues that affect many of your neighbors who do nothing to hurt you. To the person worried about people driving on it: Here is one of many places to start seeing actual data: Web Link

AND think about it: if you fear really is that people will drive on it, how do you think people in Palo Alto are now getting OUT of Palo Alto to get it in San Jose? They are NOT walking.

It's important for people unfamiliar with or uneducated about cannabis to learn before affecting the vote and HURTING their neighbors who could really use it so that they don't flare up their medical problems even worse by having to drive all the way to San Jose and stand in long lines.

To those who think it is TOXIC, again, you have been misinformed. There are so many studies showing that it is LESS "toxic" than even water. You can kill yourself drinking too much water. You can't kill yourself if even if you tried to with cannabis; it has NO (zero) LD50 (all those Rx and OTC drugs HAVE LD-50s, and ARE toxic).

Oh, also back to the person concerned about the driving issue (which is a non-issue because regular pot smokers are SAFER drivers because they are way more AWARE), I guarantee you there are WAY more people on the road on RX drugs that alter their reaction times and decision-making abilities WAY more than pot ever could.

To the person concerned about smell: seriously? you would vote to prevent a neighbor in chronic pain that cannot be relieved or managed by any other available medical treatment from being able to access pain relief in their OWN home town and then use it (not always necessarily "smoking" it--vapor is almost undetectable) in their OWN home? All I can say is you are probably one of those selfish oblivious people who makes the rest of us sick with your toxic chemical perfumes and fabric softeners and fruity hair gels--I get instantly debilitating headaches and nausea from all those things, yet they are legal to sell and use everywhere, and I have to leave restaurants and theaters I've paid to be in just to avoid the asses who are so insensitive. Pot smokers are so reviled by you, they wouldn't dare infringe on YOUR "public" space.

To the person who made the petition: I'm the person who wouldn't sign it because I READ what I could of it over your shoulder, and I AGREE with the poster above who said you were trying to mislead people on both sides of this aisle. Your proposal included specific rules and language that could basically make it STILL unavailable to anyone in Palo Alto who NEED it.

Posted by Close Minded (Insert Insulting Noun Here)
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

I laugh at all you clueless people, either way it'll get smoked in Palo Alto, dispensary or not. You bad seeds can't stop it, because all the people that actually have brains and sympathy for the people who would rather smoke herb than take pharmaceutical medication that plagues the world today will do the right thing. I've seen the petitions around town, and THEY'RE being signed. Let's redirect the flow of money from these thieving pharmaceutical corporations, and put it in a non-profit industry that provides quality medicine that actually works without all the side effects and negative effects of them white pills and plastic capsules that kill your liver. Just because you've never tried it, or you're worried your kids will get their hands on some more easily isn't even a valid reason to not want a dispensary in your town. When you go to a dispensary they'll immediately ask you to present a valid identification card and your valid doctor's prescription before you can even go into the building... Even if this doesn't go through, marijuana is already and has been abundant on the streets of Palo Alto. It WON'T EVER go away. So get your heads out of your bums. Educate yourselves before you speak, because i doubt any of you know much about it anyways besides all the garbage that's fed to you by media (a lot of it is funded by alcohol and pharmaceutical companies) and by clueless haters.

The Union (A free and very informative documentary on Marijuana)
If the link gets deleted search The Union on google videosWeb Link

Why taking prescription medications is a bunch of bologna.Web Link Look for yourself

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:36 am

No, I don't use smelly toiletries or detergents, I use unscented, because the smells make me feel ill. I also feel very ill in movie theaters because of the pungent smell from popcorn. I don't consider myself selfish because I don't want to breath fumes from anything being burned, and yes, I do smell it wafting around my home and have to close the windows to keep the smell out.

Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:37 am

The people that to these places are often kind of lowlifes who want to get legal pot, but some are people who smoke medicinally.

Is saw this being talked about on a TV news report, and they were interviewing some kid of who could not have been more obvious, it helped him with anxiety, he even waved his eyebrows while saying it, and added supposedly or something like that.

I don't care - except there is a lot of money going into the hands or somebody.

Legalization is an improvement, and put it somewhere in an industrial area away from downtown and residential areas.

I do not think though that Palo Alto is much suited to have a pot dispensary because there are not any appropriate places to put it.

Posted by tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

I'm glad you don't. I'm sorry I angrily assumed you might be. This issue is sensitive, and it's hard to deal with/listen to people who don't need it and don't CARE about those of us who do need it. Assuming we might annoy you with an odor as reason to deny us a HARMLESS and extremely effective medicine that we can use in less smelly ways and probably not anywhere near your personal residence, hurts us; it seemed selfish. Lack of compassion there. But I know education can clear up a lot of those issues, and people who still just don't know the true safety and benefits of it are just so biased against it, they don't want to "waste" THEIR time on it. But it's our time and our city too, and I would never vote to deny you pain relief or make you leave the city to get it. And BELIEVE me, I have tried EVERY other pain option. I have so many narcotics in the house (that do nothing except sometime help me relax a bit--pain still there-- pot actually lessens or removes the pain and lets me MOVE). I also use a TENS machine off and on every day (and I need it turned up high enough that it's too intense to do anything but lie still while it's on); as soon as I turn it off so I can get up and do anything, the pain is right back. Yes, I've done chiro, meditation, supplements, yoga -- you name it (most make it worse or do nothing).

Posted by tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:58 am

Also to the "smell" issue person: So what I forgot to put in those last posts was basically this: It's wrong (and hypocritical) of you to want to keep a potentially smelly medicine illegal if you aren't also fighting to MAKE ILLEGAL all the scented TOXIC crap that is now preventing both of us from going A LOT of places. And also think about this: Those of us who need it are already using it at home (and you don't smell it at all), but we're still suffering more than we need to by having to pay for gas and pay the price of lots of increased pain to drive as far as we have to and stand in line as long as we do to get what we need. We should be able to get in in THIS town. It's part of California and it's LEGAL medicinally in the state (despite the out-of-state Mormon-backed fight against full legalization), so as far as I'm concerned, you are blocking the will of the voters of the state by restricting access here.

It is astounding how reactionary and uninformed and downright fearful many people are on this issue. They feel in danger and that their own personal being will threatened by what others choose to do. We can all live and let live. Let those who need cannabis have it. Let those who do not want it leave it alone. There is freedom for everyone of us.

Posted by Tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm

I find it interesting that the majority of posters voting no above didn't put their names, but all of us who are educated on the issue are proudly giving our names.

I want to add that any argument comparing pot and alcohol are besides the point--because it's apples and oranges: Pot is GOOD for you (and you know this if you educate yourself and read the years and years worth of research on it). Alcohol is poison (and we all know this). However: UNTIL YOU HELP US LEGALIZE IT TO SAVE LIVES/FAMILIES: Pot is cause for people who have committed no violence against anyone to be locked up in prisons for years (their kids thrown into foster care). Yet alcohol is sold freely in corner stores everywhere almost all the time; it is advertised; it is glamorized; it decreases inhibition and increases violence and causes tons of harm (and domestic violence)--YET we allow it and see its place in society because we LEARNED the lessons of its prohibition. Can't we apply what we've learned about the root cause of all violence and death associated with it (i.e., it's prohibition IS the cause of the crime and death)? Can't we see people are suffering and dying because of a BAD LAW? It needs to be legalized fully Federally. In the meantime, RESPECT your state law and allow its use for those of us who are willing to pay the exorbitant fees for the doctor (every year) and the state card (every year) and the medicine itself (because it is so expensive because it is still illegal federally and city taxes will make it even more so). IMHO, Palo Alto should allow dispensaries with no tax on them (to show their compassion for the sick) or at least no tax greater than any other business--seriously, or they are biased closed-minded hypocrites, still trying to deny fellow citizens access to what they need and are legally entitled to in this state. Don't be a NIMBY. Care about the reputation of your city. Palo Alto should be an accepting open tolerant compassionate and educated bunch.

Posted by Charlie
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:30 pm

"We felt Palo Alto would be a jurisdiction that would be open to something like this," Allen said. "People in Palo Alto tend to support individual rights and have progressive values.
Yes PA is a gold mine for something... and we have more lawyers here than any other cities in the bay area.

Posted by Tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm

Too much coffee not enough cannabis, so here I am again: Just wanted to say also that prop 19 failed because the big growers want to keep it illegal because they would lose money if it were legal and the price dropped--and it almost passed. So think about that. Most average joes in California voted for it to be fully legal here--many of the pot producers didn't want it! It is us average joes who need to INSIST it be fully legal so that our police officers are no longer in danger being forced to implement its prohibition, so that families are not broken forever because of stupid jail terms for a "crime" that hurts NO ONE, so that more people suffering great pain can learn they don't have to fear cannabis anymore and experience some relief and joy in their lives again. That vote showed that MOST Californians are educated enough on the issue to KNOW that it's prohibition is barbaric. And IMHO any city that limits access to it is too.

Posted by Rational
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Anyone bother to look and see if any of these TERRIBLE boogie man scenarios have played out in the cities and towns across the state that
have had dispensaries opened for the last 15 years?!
Folks, the boogie man never came. Oh, and by the way, it IS legal to smoke it in PA right now if prescribed. The law has been on the books since 1996. Again, no sign of the boogie man anywhere.

Posted by Tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Charlie! Hey, are YOU a lawyer? Do you know a group of lawyers knowledgeable about these issues who could band together and sue the city for restricting our access to medicine legal in the state? OR, better yet, if Palo Alto can make its own laws that differ from those of the state's, then can they propose that it be made fully legal here in this city? THAT would be stupendous! We could lead the whole U.S. in cannabis legalization and education about patient rights! and in compassion!

Posted by Tracey Chen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Last comment: People, part of what was wrong with that proposal was the use of the term "prescription." No one can get a medical prescription for cannabis yet--because they are federally regulated. All we can get is a medical "recommendation"; don't let that bad terminology stay in any proposal, because taken literally it means no one can get it in Palo Alto.

Posted by Real person
a resident of another community
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm

I know of two people who "use" medical marijuana, in addition to prescription pain killers for chronic pain issues, it is such a sham and even they admit it. They pop the vicodin for pain and smoke the pot when its time to party. If anyone can really say marijuana is a cure all miracle drug, I would like to see it given out at drug stores, why isn't walgreens filling prescriptions? They hand out schedule 2 narcotics for pain management, why not this harmless stuff that grows in the ground? Its useless thats why, and should not be legalized. I'd rather be poping diluadid for an actual complaint rather then smoking some grass, but thats just me a sensible person.

So, this is a very touch subject for some. I don't use, but I support it. I understand and would hate to have some reason to need it. I would not take the OTC's because of all the WARNINGS associated with them. You take one, you need another for an offset...Really!?!

A POINT FOR EVERYONE...It doesn't have to be smoked...Did you hear me? They make all kinds of foods with the THC, for people who were never smokers, to consume.
THEY EAT IT not smoke it.

So, now you can get off the horrible smell bandwagon and think of some other counter point! Good luck with that!

Posted by Only if in all of CA
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm

I would vote to legalize Marijuana in all of California... but I won't vote to legalize just in Palo Alto. I simply to want us to have to deal with customers coming from out-of-town to buy their marijuana here.

Posted by Only if in all of CA
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm

I would vote to legalize Marijuana in all of California... but I won't vote to legalize it just in Palo Alto. I simply don't want us to have to deal with customers coming from out-of-town to buy their marijuana here.

As the mother of four teenagers with direct experience on this issue I hope many will read and gain some insight;
My two son's at the age of 16 with a bit of peer pressure were easily able to do the following;
Call a dispensary and ask for a recommended Dr who would supply them with a medicinal card,
--this same dispensary also advised them where to get a fake ID,
--They were able to pay $100 for the fake IDs,
--They were given Dr apts with some Quack Dr in RWC and for $150 were able to have a 10 minute apt, claim their symptoms were insomnia.
(does this sound like CANCER/NOT)and shortly there after had their medicinal users paperwork.

The more dispensaries there are , and the closer they are the more influence they have on our kids. Marijuana IS addictive; I personally know of several young students/ and adults who have suffered withdrawal symptoms, psychological problems and brain damaging effects from consistent use over period of months to years. I do not think we need to legalize or add another addictive vice to the buffet of mind, soul and intellect damaging drugs.

If true PATIENTS need this medication then let Drs and pharmacy's manage their legitimate administration & their quality control . The dispensaries sell very potent forms of the stuff, as well as brownies etc. They knowingly sell to youth whom they know do NOT have medical issues that would be helped by ingesting pot. Yet if anyone has the papers from these unethical Dr's they will sell. I have called them and I have visited them and interviewed them. Our high schools are ripe with students doing this same thing. Now we are left to do remedial damage control, education about the real story about marijuana , its toxic, its addictive, and it is mind altering in way that can lead to long term effect to ones brain/mental health.

Call the San Jose police department and ask them how the crime rates are around the areas of these dispensaries. Or better yet ask the Redwood City or Palo Alto police how they feel about bringing Dispensaries to our towns!

The Letter I hope many consider sending to our council member below:

Dear PA City Council Members

It is my understanding that your office will be considering revised guidelines for marijuana dispensaries, better known as pot shops. I encourage you to consider the danger these so-called businesses have on our communities and respectfully request that you publicly support banning pot shops.

Within the last two-years, over 200 cities and 14 counties in California have banned or passed a moratorium on pot shops. This number speaks volumes about what happens when communities see through the smokescreen and are enlightened as to what pot shops really bring their communities-more illegal drug use, more crimes, and more of our youth being sold marijuana (and sometimes other drugs) from a so-called medical marijuana patient.

Dispensaries are in business to make money and will sell marijuana to anyone who produces a written recommendation. These recommendations can be obtained by paying physicians a fee and claiming any medical condition, even a headache. Dispensaries claim to operate as nonprofit, but they have been tied to organized crime gangs and are often multi-million dollar profit centers.

Dispensaries are easy marks for criminal activities because of valuable marijuana crops and large amounts of cash. Operators of dispensaries have been attacked and murdered by armed criminals both at their storefronts and at home. Common secondary byproducts related to dispensaries include: drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise, and robberies of customers just outside the facilities.

Other secondary impacts to communities where dispensaries are located include: street dealers who hang around to sell at a lower price than the dispensary, marijuana smoking in public and in front of minors, an increase in traffic accidents and driving under the influence arrests in which marijuana is implicated, and the loss of other commercial businesses who don't want to be located in the vicinity of marijuana dispensaries.

I hope that you will carefully consider these points and urge you to ban pot shops from our towns. I also encourage you to go to the California Police Chiefs Association website and review the many documents they have on the subject of marijuana dispensaries.

First off, it is a total myth that smoking marijuana is healthy. Its not. Of course its harm is probably right in the same neighborhood of many other things people do, and its not necessary to blow it out of proportion, but its not a net benefit to your general health under any circumstances. If you inhale burning particulate, its bad for your lungs, end of story. Also, just like alcohol, using the internet, watching TV, its just another way to escape, be less productive, and be "OK" with getting bored. Again, its your choice, but don't pretend that somehow smoking weed is actually making you a better person.

What if you spent the money on charity instead, and spent your time helping someone else, or composing some music, writing, reading? hey, same argument could be made for many other things as well.

Second, I leave near an elementary school, and I'd rather not say which one, since I don't want to encourage anyone else to come there, but I am seeing more and more little baggies from local marijuana dispenseries littering the school. They all have groovy names like "Lemon Lush," plus a boilerplate phrase from the relavant Cal Code section. The proponents of these laws will always pull at your heart strings by giving you cases of severely ill people needing these drugs to feel better, but obviously a large percentage of "medical" marijuana users have nothing wrong with them at all, and are just looking to get high.

That's fine, but please don't do it on school grounds, and do not drive when you are doing it, as I have witnessed many times on my street - bunches of teenagers getting high in their cars, looking paranoid when you walk near them. There aren't any guidelines for how much you can smoke and still safely drive.

I have no problem with people smoking marijuana, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the choice if we want this product to be more available than it already is to the teens in our community.

Posted by Shari Lieber Silverman
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm

I realize that the issue is the presence of marijuana dispensaries in Palo Alto, not research into the medicinal uses of marijuana so this post is somewhat beside the main point, but perhaps a little more background can shed some light on this controversy.

What people with medical issues need is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocanninol.) THC is the active ingredient in marijuana. If THC, in either organic or an equally efficacious synthetic form, was available then there would be no need for marijuana dispensaries, as THC would be a prescritible drug. Marijuana was a legally prescriptible drug listed in the U.S. Pharmocopeia prior to 1942.

Unfortunately there is no impetus to fund THC research as any medication evolving from these studies would be non-patentable; it takes many millions of dollars to bring a drug through all Phases of FDA approval and no pharmaceutical company has any business rationale to spend huge amounts of money on a drug that would be instantly generic.

Independent non-corporate university research studies on the uses of THC are hampered by two factors: marijuana was listed as a Schedule 1 drug (which places it, along with heroin, as having no medicinal benefit coupled with high potential for abuse), and, second, that all sanctioned, recognized scientific research has to be performed on the small amount of Federally grown and supplied marijuana.

That marijuana was placed as a Schedule 1 drug was a political decision, not a scientific one, as there simply are not enough studies and data to demonstrate whether marijuana classifies as Schedule 1. (Marijuana should have been placed as a Schedule 2 drug instead which would allow easier access to the substance for research.)

However, since marijuana is legally considered Schedule 1, those medical researchers who want to study it must obtain their study samples from the Federal government. Again unfortunately, the Federal government does not maintain a sufficient substance supply. So, a researcher has to fight others to obtain an adequate initial study supply, there is no corporation or governmental funding for the research and even if the researcher does have a current supply there is a strong chance that the research will not be able to be taken to completion due to future unavailability of the sample substance.

As for the supposed adverse effects of marijuana, if you go to the Federal websites, such as The National Institute of Health (NIH) and look under marijuana you will find statements that appear to link marijuana use to psychosis and addiction.

If you look a bit more carefully and closely at thoise same sites you will see that these statements gloss over that these asertions appear to be based on unregulated use by the underaged.

Since by definition use by the underaged coupled with the Schedule 1 classification makes all this used marijuana illegal there is no allowance in these assertions for the possibility of impurity of the marijuana. (If I were a criminal with a field of lucrative marijuana as my crop I do not think I would hesitate to use the strongest fertilizers and insecticides available.)

No one -the Federal government included - actually knows what street-obtained marijuana may be tainted with and to link any condition to street marijuana is spurious science as there are simply too many unaccounted for variables.

That said, will some people who use even the purest marijuana become addicted? Sure.

Just as there are alcoholics who are addicted to alcohol and overeaters who are addicted to food, there will always be a small percentage of the population that may become addicted.

Is banning THC from our medical arsenal a reasonable action because some percentage of the population may develop an addiction?

No; if that reasoning was used we would also have to ban alcohol and supermarkets, as they also have the potential for addiction.

This is what The American College of Physicians has to say about THC: Web Link

And, this is a very long, involved post! :) (Thanks for reading!)

Why do I have such a strong interest and stake in this question?

Well, if I had my druthers THC would be an option for a doctor to legally subscribe, but, we're not there yet so the only way for anyone with medical need to obtain THC is through the use and sale of marijuana.

And, as a former nurse and someone with a neurodegenerative disease I feel that denial of THC is what should be criminal, not marijuana.

For most people, marijuana is safer than alcohol. Alcohol makes people more aggressive while also reducing inhibitions, a dangerous combination when it comes to driving or sex. Pot tends to mellow people out and make them more cautious, though it also impedes judgement and is unhealthy in other ways.

Having said that, I am opposed to opening pot stores in Palo Alto. The experience of other communities that have done this is that high school and middle school truancy rates jump almost immediately. Yes there is pot in our schools already. But making pot legally and easily available withing walking or biking distance of school and home has greatly increased use by teenagers in every other community that has opened these pot shops. It is ridiculously lucrative for doctors to write these prescriptions (one Dr was bragging he netted $1.5 million a year doing nothing but pot prescriptions) so there will always be a few who will write one for anyone with any kind of ID and bogus symptoms. Also please note that a "non-profit" pot seller can pay its employees any salaries and bonuses they choose to - a million bucks a year if they can they generate enough sales - so they also have incentive to sell to kids.

If these stores open in Palo Alto, there will be more pot in our schools. More kids will tune out and their school work, activities and community involvement will decrease. For kids already struggling with depression, psychological problems or motivational issues, pot is a sharp shovel that digs them deeper faster - I saw way too much of that when I was in high school, some of which ended very badly. Adults with genuine medical needs or who just want to get stoned can easily drive to another community to buy pot.

Posted by why I wot vote for it
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm

why I wont vote for it.

Medical Marijuana is a joke. Its not like its hard to get a medical marijauna card in California. Claim back pain and you are in. There is no threshold just say the magic words. "I need it for ___ pain. Given this, we should just legalize it for everyone and stop the nudge, nudge, wink, wink aspect to this drug. That would allow legitimate farmers to grow it, improving the consistancy, quality and purity and lower the price. All that would help all those ____ pain suffers cope better.

Pot should be legal, first because there is nothing to show it is a dangerous narcotic, and it is demonstrably much less problematic than alcohol which is already legal - not to mention the government should leave people alone to what their business is - until it becomes a generally agreed on real problem.

Second, just because pot should be legal, does not mean people should be able to possess it or be under the influence of it anywhere, anytime. They should not. Minors should not be able to get it, and people should not be able to drive under the influence or subject bystanders to smoke.

Finally, looking at the country these days, one of the biggest problems is the corruption and power that huge amounts of cash generated in some questionable or negative way, such as strip mining, fracking, or in the case of marijuana, have on our country and society. The best reason to legalize marijuana is to destroy the incomes of the drug cartels and to take people who are minor criminals and remove them from the prisons - at least for marijuana related offenses.

Sometime at some point we have to start dealing realiistcally with these problems because all they do is fester and metastasize when we leave them to stew in their own corruption.

Posted by 20 Year Regret
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm

I have a few points...

1. When my kids were at Gunn, their classmates drove to Oakland (the closest place) to achieve what Geneva's sons were able to do in Redwood City. I do not believe that distance makes a difference to those determined, and I for sure would prefer that IF kids are going to pursue medical marijuana, that they do it without driving from PA to Oakland - especially since they are still provisional drivers. PA's decision will have little impact on those determined to find their own loophole.

2. My father died a painful death from cancer 20 years ago. The family tried everything legal to help him "live" his last 1-1/2 years. Watching a loved one suffer is something I don't wish on anyone. He learned during the last six months that others in his condition were using marijuana to ease the suffering. This 60 year old, that had never done anything illegal in his life, would have pursued the purchase were he able to leave his bed. Because it was illegal, I never looked for a way to get it for him, and regret it to this day. I feel I failed him in his real hour of need.

3. The posts speaking of the difficulty in doing good research on both the addictiveness and functioning abilities need to be understood. Why would anyone want people buying off the street - there is no way to know what a person is actually using. I do believe that those benefiting from the illegal production worked hard to keep prop 19 from passing. Let's not let them influence Palo Alto as well.

Posted by Chuckling at it all
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm

Here's the reality. EVERYONE who wants it can get it now...like today. Adults get it from the black market as well as the legal dispensaries, teens basically just have the black market.
The cost is not significantly lower enough to make resale viable, so you're not likely to see resale. That leaves two supply chains: The unregulated which has been historically and is currently the way the vast majority of teens get their pot, and the regulated dispensaries where I have yet to find one that allows minors even through the door.

The fine for smoking (if the police even bother) is a max of 100 dollars if you do not have a card. Probably about the cost of a referral letter so many just forgo the hassles of getting it.
Those are the realities.
All this hub-bub though...so silly.

Please site your sources. Sounds like you thought this out for a while before you wrote your amusing letter directed towards the city. The pot dispensaries that were putting money to the side only have had 300,000 on a private account at the most. And the Federal government closed their shop and they're looking at criminal charges. Smoking marijuana actually lowers the crime rate, if you knew anything you wouldn't have to exaggerate so much.

Posted by G TOWN
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Tabaco and alcohol was illegal at one point.Moonshine as they called it.The mob push tabaco and the goverment said too much was being made without being taxed,raise the price put it on the shelves and we will get rich off watching them kill thier selves.(we as the people REP.)Anything they can tax and gain money, power ,and control they will and have.The orignal tax is from a slave,yes a slave.So uncle sam is a myth that has gain power and control.Palo altans dont want what comes with a pot club because they never want to be viewed in a bad way.Pot is on the shelf and its here to gain power and control for the same people REP.

We don't need more stoners, and 4% isn't nearly enough tax. People can get stoned in nearby towns, and our police can spend their time on other things. Smoking is bad for the lungs. Patients can get meds from their doctors or pharmacies if they really need it.

If the City government really wants tax money, they should allow bigger grocery stores and other big stores. I am tired of spending time and gas money driving to nearby cities (who get my sales tax).

Posted by Sideline Sam
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 9, 2011 at 5:49 am

A funny observation I didn't expect to see:
Those opposed seem to be filled with fear and paranoia about what might happen, while the other side offers rational thoughts backed up by factual happenings that have ccurred in this arena for the past decade +.

Posted by a former student at Palo Alto
a resident of Gunn High School
on Sep 9, 2011 at 8:35 am

FINALLY!!!

Those who oppose is just because they have been brain washed to hate and nothing other than hate.

Marijuana is 500% safer than alchoal, how many people die from smoking too much weed and crashing their car in a bad enough accident when they are only driving 5 mph, and how many people you know from alchoal poisoning and crashed in an DUI accident after drinking and feeling like a psycho after drinking too much??

Here's the outcome of whatever happens wrt allowing dispensaries in PA:
1) Not Allowed: People will drive to SJ or SF, put their money into the coffers of those cities, bring their pot brownies or smokable pot back to PA and smoke/eat it. They might also employ one of the dozens of delivery services to deliver it to their homes as well.

2) Allowed: People will drive or walk to the local dispensary, put their tax dollars into the coffers of PA, bring their pot brownies or smokable pot back home and smoke/eat it.

3) Many will simply choose to legally grow it at home. As I've seen first hand in my veggie garden, PA weather is wonderful for a growing healthy crop of pretty much anything, so I'd expect to see in home grows for personal use increase, esp as the industry that sells the grow systems contionues to boom. Its cheaper and easier in the long run, and legal if you are a mmj patient.

In any event, the pot is out there folks, everywhere. We're just arguing over who gets the taxes on it. All the other noise is just that. The nice thing is that even with all the pot so widely available, that none of the doom and gloom the fear mongers were pushing came true.

Cannabis clubs purported to dispense "medicinal" marijuana are a scam. They are less concerned about treating the patient, and more concerned with promoting the general use of marijuana and making a buck. The cannabis cards that are issued have no regulatory controls from any local government or the state. The cards are produced with a photo copy and laminating machine. Anyone can produce these and no one would have any way of knowing if it is legitimate or not.

The cannabis clubs in San Jose have been troubled and magnets for problems. They all seem to have burly security guards outside the door, not unlike a bouncer in a nightclub. Many have been shut down due to complaints and neighborhood issues. The people coming and going look more like thugs than those requiring any medical treatment.

If cannabis is to be used medicinally, then it should be regulated like any other drug and only distributed by a licensed physician. We don't need these dime store operations setting themselves up and doing business in our city.

Posted by G TOWN
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:54 am

Secret societies are strongly aginst it,bbecause peace is free.Something that doesnt give them profit will be destroyed.This is why people when promoting peace and reach the level of success get killed.Im sorry people check your history hemp has been around and used in many ways.Clothing rope paper the list goes on.Native americans wore leather,China had paper five thousand years ago.Cotton came along around 1788-1790 so what was wore for clothing?Columbus was realy looking for hemp and found tabacco,inspired by Europe who had clothing rope e.t.c used for many reasons.Rope was used to help build pyramids as well.

Native, I've been around long enough to know what a thug is. It's called a little common sense and street smarts. You'll be crying shame until someone robs you or breaks into your house. Hypocrite! Not in my town.

Posted by Native
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 9, 2011 at 10:26 am

Finn, I'm very glad you read my postitd be great if you could make a point withoutn insulting entire groups of people. look forward to it. PS Its already in _OUR_ down via delivery services. That battle was lost about 10 yrs ago yet I don't see how its affected a single thing in PA. Love and peace to you.

I don't know ANYONE who would vote for legalized (non-medicinal, non-regulated) marijuana.

Then again, it might have something to do with the acquaintances that I choose to keep.

I have seen firsthand the damage that can come from marijuana. Despite all of the misleading rhetoric that tries to portray it as a peaceful, recreational drug that doesn't harm anyone (*cough cough), studies -- including those done for the government -- have shown that the opposite is true.

For those who are comparing marijuana and other drugs with alcohol...

Alcohol is legal because it is actually GOOD for you in moderation. It takes a varying amount to actually inebriate a person. A glass of wine or even a couple of beers do not do this. It is when it is MISUSED that alcohol becomes a problem.

This isn't the case with marijuana. A person is cognitively inebriated almost immediately. A person who absorbs marijuana will have an almost immediate problem with distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). They will have a loss of coordination, thinking and problem-solving skills, and it obviously affects their memories and learning (the "pothead" stereotype is all too real). It can also have an adverse effect on many people, causing panic and anxiety rather than "mellow" moods.

Remember: While alcohol is legal, PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS is not. Jails are filled with people arrested for public intoxication. And, of course, alcohol is responsible for many deaths on the road -- from people who exceeded safe alcohol limits that do not impair perception, judgment and coordination.

There is no safe, non-impairing level of marijuana. One joint inebriates the user. People who take it are taking it for a reason. It almost becomes a religion for many such individuals. While it may not be biologically addictive, there is a strong yearning to continue taking it. It is evident in their angry reaction toward those who disagree with the idea of legalizing it.

I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana in Palo Alto. Even the medical marijuana (*cough cough) industry is shady. I have read the studies about marijuana use -- and I believe that those medical and psychological studies are much more credible than the arguments of a few (yet very loud) marijuana supporters.

I understand the points of those who want to legalize it...but I still strongly disagree.

Posted by Dumb idea
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 10:45 am

Monumentally STUPID idea. Why has the government not made marijuana a drug that doctors can prescribe and distribute like other drugs through pharmacies? We have an existing system for controlling distribution of addictive medications. (Anyone who says it is not addictive is simply uninformed.) Let's use the existing system. These people are trying to start a retail business that will allow them to brand and distribute the drug broadly. Don't give them a foot in the door. Not here, please. Let's use a system that already exists that we know works.

Jeesh! With so many other important issues that really need attention, I'd like our politiciams to just do what they should have done decades ago. Make it a prescription drug distributed thorugh normal prescription channels. Then let's get back to sorting out our economic and budget problems.

native, The only people I refer to are thugs. I could care less about any category beyond that. And OK, if it's already here via delivery service, then absolutely no need to open cannabis clubs here in Palo Alto.

Posted by Native
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:43 am

Actually Finn, you spoke about people who you thought LOOKED like thugs.
Different things entirely. Regardless, I agree about not opening a dispensary in PA. Bigger cities are more well suited for this and should be rewarded by the increase in tax revenue, plus it will do zero to the already ample supply for any who want it weather its dispensed here or in SF.

Posted by Vote-NO
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm

> It's important for people unfamiliar with or uneducated
> about cannabis

It's always amusing to read posts like this one, particularly since there is no evidence that the poster is actually "educated" himself on something that can end up causing other people to lose their lives.

As a former company commander, I found myself having to deal with basically three kinds of drugs commonly used by the troops: alcohol, marijuana, and amphetamines. By and large, alcohol was the drug of choice of the troops, and the military. Often abused, it was not at all uncommon to have to go to the Provost Marshall's Office to pick up a drunk GI who had been picked up by the MPs on what one might call a "drunk and disorderly" charge. Alcohol does cause many individuals to become belligerent.

Amphetamines were not all that prevalent, but when used by the GIs, behavioral problems often resulted. In these case, the GIs were often aggressive, and sometimes ended up in altercations.

Marijuana was the drug of choice of many GIs, more often from urban origins than those from rural/country origins. Marijuana was sold (illegally) on the streets in 5-dollar bags, and 10-dollar bags. So, given its low cost, it was popular with those not making a lot of money.

Aggressive behavior problems did not normally exist. Most of the "toking" GIs sort of found some place to "power down", and just got "blotto". Which turned out to be the problem that was most worrisomesince we were in a combat zone, and it became clear dealing with "zoned out" soldiers that they were not able to function without several hours of "sleeping it off". Since soldiers are on duty 7/24/365 in a combat zone, these soldiers were at risk of not being able to perform their jobs at all times, and ultimately put themselves, and the company, at risk.

I would not send a drunk GI out to work, and I certainly could not send a "stoned" GI out to work, since driving a vehicle in a foreign country is very different than driving here in the US. Not being fully sober, and alert, was a guaranteed traffic accident, a lot of paper work, and often severe injuries were sustained by the foreign nationals that drove very small, poorly constructed, vehicles.

So .. to the people who have so arrogantly brayed at the moon about their "superior" education where cannabis is concernedI challenge you to provide some details as to why you are "educated" and folks like myself are not. What experiences (outside of your bedrooms) can you provide?

those ancient 2500 year old graves in china had cannabis found with them. like they were sayin' ,''we don't know if your'e goin' to heaven ,but if you get there you might want some grass so you can enjoy it more!'' . meAning, hey ,heaven is great ,but it's nothin' without some weed!''. better than ''heaven''!.what better advertsement for cannabis?! cant argue with people who built one of the ''wonders of the world''. so much for the supposed ''amotivational syndrome'' that current ''psychologists'' preach!!

Posted by Jeanette W.
a resident of Addison School
on Sep 9, 2011 at 4:19 pm

I am 54yr old women who uses medical marijuana user. I must admit isit is easy to obtain this drug that hels with many of my ailments. I am totally aginst Palo Alto allowing cannabis clubs. The reason for m disapproval is it is too easy to get a club card. All a person (over 18) has to do is go to a doctor who sit in aan office all day and give people a vard. I have not heard of anyone who was rejected. all you have to do is give them a reason such as insomnia or any other ailment. When I go to the clubs maninly in San ose there are way too many high functioning people who recieve a card. Please think of thehigh school students who have friends who are 18 years, wo will sale it to our teenagers, and yes Palo Alto has lots if teenagers who smoke marijuana. I hope this ordiance is defeted.

Posted by Michael
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 9, 2011 at 11:41 pm

yeah because it not like when its legal those doctors or dispenceries that give pot to kids would get in trouble. because as soon as pots legal every things legal isn't that right prohibitionists. its not like the government couldn't take care of these people that allow kids to partake in grown up activities easier if it were regulated and they stopped fixating on us non violent law abiding cannabis consumers. and for all you complainers we as a country laid down a line of subtances we could abuse responsible(with all do respect)though that is not entirely the case with the substances we allowed alcohol, tobacco, and many perscription drugs that a lot would say deserve to be on the other side of the line. but cannabis may not be like eating fruit and vegetables, but if its safer than those substances (which it is) and all the riduculous complaints like smell,kids being able to get it easier once legalized,etc can be easily refuted (though its seems people just go in a circle with them once they all have been refuted they start back at the beginning. what im getting at with alcohol,tobacco,and cannabis is that its like saying you can play with these fireworks, or that strange dog, but you can't play football or soccer or whatever because you might stub a toe or brake a bone. personally i think blowing your fingers off or getting bit seem more like the attention grabber. lets say alcohol is dog attack, and tobacco is finger loss. Its time to legalize cannabis for anyone.

as many may know, in the daily post there is short article on findings that pot users were less likely to be obese than non pot users, these findings surprised the researcheers! so, maybe ''pot'' can be good to protect health. no warning labels of harmful side effects on pot packages from dispensaries. but virtuall all drugs from your local cvs have warnings of deadly side effects.

Posted by G TOWN
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 11, 2011 at 2:20 am

When they open up shop in palo alto we will be there,thugs and all.Palo Alto cracks me up...Most crack heads come to East Palo Alto to by drugs and alot are from Palo Alto...Why cant we come buy pot from yall,and share the wealth.Stop trying to be so right when you wrong as can be.More people smoke pot than any drug,it makes money and its a rewarding hobby.I like smoking pot,and if you never have you should.

Posted by too easily abused!
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:33 am

Anyone can pay a couple hundred bucks (or less) and get some QUACK to give them a medical marijuana card. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The people who need it legitimately, should be able to get it legally, with a legitimate prescription. It's all the people who ABUSE the system that ruin it.

And where exactly are these dispensaries going to be? The article says not in residential areas or near parks, schools, etc. So where exactly is that? Oh, let me guess -- somewhere in S. Palo Alto? Perhaps they could rejuvenate El Camino and have storefronts there?

I am all for legal marijuana for those with REAL needs, with LEGITIMATE scrips, and provided through MEDICAL OFFICES!

Posted by Mom of an addict
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 11, 2011 at 11:53 am

As the Mother of an alcoholic/ addict you will never convince me that there are any good reasons to "legalize" pot ( let alone booze) You can rationalize, minimize and go on and on with your criminal thinking errors - it is a very bad idea for the city and not worth the money. Find a source of revenue somewhere else. Build some grocery stores for hell's sake !

if you are that sick that you want to use pot to medicate yourself - I invite you to move.

Posted by @ Mom of an Addict
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Alcoholism is in a whole other ballpark, you need to shut your lips and speak on what you do know... That's obviously alcohol. I invite YOU to move, because obviously this is not the right place for your kid to live if they've became an alcoholic. People like you should be for cannabis use, because i personally know several cases of incidents where alcoholics were able to kick their addiction to alcohol by smoking cannabis instead of boozing. Good luck with AA meetings though!

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 11, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Mom of an addict

>>>"you will never convince me that there are any good reasons to "legalize" pot"

Thanks for giving us the essence of the prohibitionist position. You are addicted to your bigotry/ignorance and simply refuse to consider the facts.

Every major government commission on marijuana concluded it is not addictive and is FAR less harmful than alcohol. The DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after an exhaustive review of the evidence:

"Marijuana, in its natural state, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

In fact, in all of recorded history, NO ONE has ever died from consuming marijuana.

That not only makes it safer than alcohol, but also safer than aspirin, coffee, and peanuts.

Mankind has always enjoyed altering his consciousness, and always will. So, every person who switches from alcohol (or other harmful drug) to marijuana, improves their health and life tremendously - as well as that of their family and community.

Marijuana prohibition was a monstrous fraud from its beginning in 1937, when perpetrated by alcohol prohibition bureaucrat, Harry Anslinger. It has never accomplished even one postive thing. It has only caused vast amounts of crime, violence, corruption, death, and the severe diminishment of everyone's freedom.

Future historians will rightly call this mad era the American Inquisition.

Thank goodness California, and perhaps a few other states, will likely re-legalize marijuana at the polls next year. Most of the other states, and the feds will follow soon after.

Posted by mike
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:22 am

There are some good points and a lot of really uneducated bad points being made in this conversation.

For the parents worried about their kids having easier access to pot. The beauty of the dispensary is that they don't allow those under 18 inside without a legal guardian (who must have caregiver paperwork too). If you're child is interested in obtaining cannabis, it is not only easier, but much cheaper to do so on the street (i.e. through a peer at school). Cannabis sold at dispensaries is extremely overpriced compared to what your kids can get on the street. So where is the logic in kids having access to an 18+ establishment with product that is 50% more expensive than what they can get in school. All of this is from my experience as a former student at Paly.

If dispensaries are put into acceptable locations, and operate accordingly I don't see why the city wouldn't want the extra income. The Bayshore area on the other side of 101 would be perfect. Pick up your medicine and then go enjoy the nature that is the Bay! There are no schools or residential areas, just business parks, some of which have been up for lease for years *hint hint*

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 am

Since 90 percent of all marijuana consumption is, and likely always will be, recreational, it's inescapable that marijuana sales will be taxed. But after we soon re-legalize marijuana, it won't matter much, since the price will come down exponentially. Average quality marijuana will sell for about $50 an ounce with about $20 to $30 in taxes. Those who don't want to pay even that small amount will just grow their own.

Posted by Gotta Laugh
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2011 at 7:43 am

No.

No.

No.

NO!

These places are a joke. I hear it from my kids. Their friends get a phony fake ID, drop $75 for a "Medical Review" and walk out with the right to purchase herb.

It is way TOO easy to scam the system.

I would be willing to have this discussion if the medicinal herb were packaged by a regulated pharmaceutical company and distributed by pharmacies such as Walgreens.

BUT...those pushing for this "dispensary" path want a completely new and unique means of delivering "medicine". If herb really is a medicine, there is no reason to set up a unique infrastructure for its manufacture and delivery.

Posted by Jo Ann
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 12, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Yes, yes, yes! Legalize and tax it!

Think of all the increased business restaurants will get from people with the munchies! Or maybe not since French researchers recently found that people who smoke marijuana are thinner than people who drink
alcohol.

I'll take nice mellow marijuana consumers any day over nasty drunk drivers who are way more dangerous.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Gotta Laugh

Wow. You really haven't followed the research. There are now thousands of studies confirming the medical efficacy of marijuana. Bayer just bought the rights to Sativex, a new drug that is essentially liquid marijuana. Here are a few of the respected medical associations that support medical marijuana:

International and National Organizations

AIDS Action Council
AIDS Treatment News
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Preventive Medical Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Arthritis Research Campaign (United Kingdom)
Australian Medical Association (New South Wales) Limited
Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
Belgian Ministry of Health
British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
British House of Lords Select Committee On Science and Technology (Second Report)
British Medical Association
Canadian AIDS Society
Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
Dr. Dean Edell (surgeon and nationally syndicated radio host)
French Ministry of Health
Health Canada
Kaiser Permanente
Lymphoma Foundation of America
The Montel Williams MS Foundation
Multiple Sclerosis Society (Canada)
The Multiple Sclerosis Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences Institute Of Medicine (IOM)
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Nurses Society on Addictions
Netherlands Ministry of Health
New England Journal of Medicine
New South Wales (Australia) Parliamentary Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes
Dr. Andrew Weil (nationally recognized professor of internal medicine and founder of the National Integrative Medicine Council)

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:22 pm

Nayeli

Since marijuana is as near harmless as a recreational drug can get (see my above post - 16 hours ago.) Mankind has ALWAYS enjoyed altering his consciousness, and always will.

So, ALL marijuana use is medical use. Every person that switches from addictive, very harmful alcohol, to near harmless marijuana, improves their health and life tremendously, as well as that of their family and community.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm

This is beginning to sound like double standards.

Getting away from "medical" scenarios for a minute, society is doing its utmost at present to prevent second hand smoke from wafting into the lungs of those who don't want it. We have no smoking laws and spare the air days for good reasons. Now it seems, some would like us to have amendments to these rules to exclude pot because it is so wonderful.

It is already easily available in other areas and easily available by delivery services, so why does it need to be more readily available in Palo Alto?

Of course, some people are using the tax argument. Well most of us would prefer being able to shop for everyday necessities in Palo Alto and pay our sales tax dollars here rather than Mountain View or Menlo Park.

Stop the pot shops and give us useful retail for bringing tax dollars, thankyou very much.

Sniffing gasoline and paint "alters the consciousness" too...but that isn't helpful...and it is still harmful too.

So, you aren't really into it for "medicinal" purposes, right? I didn't think so.

Like most pro-marijuana advocates, they simply want to "alter their consciousness." In layman's terms, that is called INEBRIATION.

The difference between alcohol and marijuana, as mentioned previously, is that alcohol in moderation has many (mostly preventive) health benefits. There are no preventive health benefits for marijuana. It is claimed to be used as "treatment" for certain things -- but those things are easily treated by regulated medicine anyway and WITHOUT the harmful side effects and inebriation.

There is no good reason for marijuana to be legalized...and most credible, peer-reviewed research demonstrates this. In addition, marijuana IMMEDIATELY inebriates the user.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Resident

>>>"society is doing its utmost at present to prevent second hand smoke from wafting into the lungs of those who don't want it."

Not the 'utmost' you advocate - which is putting consumers in cages. The current tobacco policy is working well. Smoking rates continue to decline.

Marijuana is NOT tobacco. It does no serious harm to the lungs of even heavy, chronic smokers. While smoked marijuana does contain some of the same toxins as cigarettes or any other kind of smoke, smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer - for two main reasons.

One, marijuana consumers inhale a tiny fraction of the smoke that cigarette smokers do. People standing on a busy street corner inhale more toxic smoke than the two or three puffs of marijuana. Second, researchers have found marijuana has anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties.

The preeminent researcher of marijuana and lung disease, UCLA's Dr. Donald Tashkin, conducted investigations over 30 years, initially believing there must be a causal relationship. But he finally concluded that smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or ANY other serious disease.

Further, smoking is just one form of marijuana consumption. Vaporization is becoming increasingly popular because it does not create smoke. No smoke - no harm - at all.

>>>"some would like us to have amendments to these rules to exclude pot because it is so wonderful."

That's a straw man argument. I have been discussing/debating this topic since the dawn of the Internet. I've never heard anyone suggest marijuana smoke should be exempt from any of the rules that apply to tobacco smoking.

>>>"why does it need to be more readily available in Palo Alto?"

Why should beer - or anything else - be readily available in Palo Alto? So it will be convenient for the public, of course. Since marijuana is non-addictive, and far less harmful than alcohol, it is a boon to mankind - and Palo Alto.

>>>"Stop the pot shops and give us useful retail for bringing tax dollars."

Stop the silly demonization of marijuana. The truth is out. Polls show a growing majority of ALL Americans want to end the fraudulent, counter-productive prohibition of marijuana. The dispensaries, and other sales outlets, will be fine, upstanding, contributing retailers. Easily more so than alcohol vendors.

Of course, the taxes will generate substantial income streams for the communities, just as alcohol and tobacco taxes do. The difference is, there are no health/welfare costs like those 'accepted' recreational drugs cause.

>>>"The global war on drugs has failed and governments should explore legalizing marijuana and other controlled substances, according to a commission that includes former heads of state, a former UN secretary-general and a business mogul.

A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy argues that the decades-old "global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." The 24-page paper will be released Thursday.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.

The 19-member commission includes former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former US official George P. Schultz, who held cabinet posts under US Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Others include former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, UK business mogul Richard Branson and the current prime minister of Greece.

Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalization of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users in need.

The commission called for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime, lead to better health and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in healthcare and human rights."

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 6:30 pm

nayeli

>>>"Sniffing gasoline and paint "alters the consciousness" too...but that isn't helpful...and it is still harmful too."

More straw man arguments. Who ever said ALL manners of altering consciousness are not harmful? What is clear is marijuana is the nearest to harmless of all the recreational drugs that exist - especially less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. In all of recorded history, NO ONE has ever died from consuming marijuana.

>>>"they simply want to "alter their consciousness." In layman's terms, that is called INEBRIATION."

If you have a problem with 'inebreation,' you first need to examine alcohol, which does that to a far greater degree. The fact that you aren't campaigning to prohibit alcohol shows your hypocrisy. Marijuana is NOT alcohol. It doesn't impair thinking. It enhances it. As these consumers (some famous) testify:}

>>>"The difference between alcohol and marijuana, as mentioned previously, is that alcohol in moderation has many (mostly preventive) health benefits."

Oh, brother. They are miniscule, and can be better obtained by drinking grape juice. They can in NO way balance the destruction caused by alcohol consumption. More than 100,000 direct deaths every year in the U.S. alone. Add to that the thousands of lives lost and people maimed from alcohol induced violence - and traffic carnage. That's just lame.

>>>"There are no preventive health benefits for marijuana."

Wrong. There are now thousands of studies that confirm the medical efficacy of marijuana. You are just demonstrating the ostrich maneuver now. Not pretty. 8^)

>>>"There is no good reason for marijuana to be legalized."

Wrong, of course. 800,000 innocent Americans who prefer near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol, are made second-class citizens for life because of a marijuana arrest. They will forever face huge obstacles to decent housing, jobs, education, government benefits, travel, and will always go into court with one strike against them. They can even have their CHILDREN taken away.

Future historians will rightly call this era the American Inquisition.

Thank goodness California, and perhaps a few other states, will likely re-legalize marijuana next year. Most of the other states, and the feds, will follow soon after. This justice is WAY past due!

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2011 at 6:49 pm

JT

The Lancet does not agree with you

<vThis week we publish a seminar on the adverse effects of cannabis (p 1611) . Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij conclude that the most likely adverse effects of smoking cannabis are bronchial irritation, the risk of accidents when intoxicated, dependence, and possible cognitive impairment with heavy, long-term use. The evidence summarised in this seminar was considered by a committee of the UK House of Lords which reported on Nov 11This week we publish a seminar on the adverse effects of cannabis (p 1611) . Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij conclude that the most likely adverse effects of smoking cannabis are bronchial irritation, the risk of accidents when intoxicated, dependence, and possible cognitive impairment with heavy, long-term use. The evidence summarised in this seminar was considered by a committee of the UK House of Lords which reported on Nov 11>

You are REALLY stretching it with the spin there, friend. I know that you really want to smoke pot...but thankfully, most Americans see through the rhetorical smoke and understand that research points it to be a detriment to society.

Good luck with your love for marijuana. The rest of us will try our darnedest to keep this city (and our lungs) SMOKE-FREE.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:23 pm

nayeli

>>>"You are REALLY stretching it"

Not at all. I just know my subject. If you would care to refute one single fact I presented, please try.

>>>"I know that you really want to smoke pot."

Of course, you don't. You don't know me. But what if I did? So what? Why does that bother you so much, since, as I have thoroughly demonstrated, marijuana is not addictive and is far less harmful than alcohol? As shown, it is even less harmful than aspirin, coffee and peanuts. You have simply swallowed the Reefer Madness fairy tale.

>>>"most Americans see through the rhetorical smoke and understand that research points it to be a detriment to society."

LOL! None of what I have said is anything but the facts - totally documented. You are the one trying to spin support out of the rhetorical air. It's not working.

***"Fifty-five percent of American adults support legalizing marijuana, up from 52 percent in 2010, according to the results of a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll.

Pollsters conducted an online survey of a representative national sample of 1,003 American adults. A solid majority, including 63 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Independents, said that they endorsed the legalization of marijuana.

Forty percent of those polled said that they opposed the idea and five percent were undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent.

The Angus Reid results are slightly higher than those published by other polling firms, such as Gallup, which use random digital dial sampling.

More men (57 percent) than women (53 percent) voiced support for legalizing cannabis. Respondents between the ages of 35 to 54 were most likely to support legalization (57 percent); however, a majority of respondents from every age group polled -- including those age 55 and over -- said that they backed making marijuana legal.

No more than ten percent of respondents said that they favored making any other illicit substance legal."

That public support continues to grow and will result in the end of the black fraud next year. Get used to it. Wake up from your propaganda-induced stupor and take a look at the truth.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 9:44 pm

resident

Please. You don't have to go to England to get propaganda supported by junk science. We have plenty here. But let's take a look.

>>>"Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij"

So who are these guys? Credentials would be nice.

>>>"conclude that the most likely adverse effects of smoking cannabis are bronchial irritation,"

Oooh. Irritation! No cancer. No heart disease. No serious ailments of any kind. And, as already demonstrated, if a consumer wants to avoid even that minor irritation they can consume marijuana in food, drink or best of all - by vaporization. No smoke - no harm - at all. This is incredibly safe compared to alcohol or tobacco.

>>>"the risk of accidents when intoxicated,"

Near zero. Marijuana is NOT alcohol. Many people think marijuana consumption causes accidents like alcohol. It doesn't, for various reasons. Research has shown marijuana is not as intoxicating as alcohol. More importantly, while alcohol drinkers think they are better drivers and so drive faster and more aggressively, marijuana consumers are very aware of their altered consciousness and correctly judge when they are too impaired to drive - refraining from doing so. If they must, they correctly compensate for their altered state by driving slower and more cautiously. They simply don't put themselves or others in harm's way. This is why marijuana is NOT a significant cause of auto accidents.

A made-up term that was invented by 'treatment' quacks when they couldn't get away with calling marijuana addictive anymore. It is deliberately amorphous, subjective, and upon close inspection - totally without substance.

>>>"and possible cognitive impairment with heavy, long-term use."

LOL! So, if you smoke ten joints a day for forty years, you MAY have some cognitive impairment. But guess what. There is not one documented case of it. Pretty strange with so many millions of consumers, eh?

This is the way of ALL the prohibitionist, black fairy tales. As the DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after an exhaustive review of the evidence: "Marijuana, in its natural state, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2011 at 11:45 pm

jokerman1

>>>"until that day the law that we have to go on now is AB 1300 which clears up the unconstitutional parts of SB 420 by the Kelly case."

That's fine. What I'm interested in is tearing down the oppressive law.

>>>"here where the laws are lax people should go with the flow until real unconstitutional parts are put in."

Perhaps you are right. California is unique. Since we have it in our power to re-legalize marijuana next year, that effort is what we should focus on. But marijuana reform is peaceful revolution. I can't fault those who push the envelope. That's largely how we got this far.

Posted by Bud Green
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm

>> If it really is that medically necessary then they ought to imbibed it in specially designed hospital facilities in recognized health facilities. Not anywere near the public, just like other toxic treatments for cancer, etc.

>> Let's redirect the flow of money from these thieving pharmaceutical corporations, and put it in a non-profit industry that provides quality medicine that actually works without all the side effects and negative effects of them white pills and plastic capsules that kill your liver.

>> If true PATIENTS need this medication then let Drs and pharmacy's manage their legitimate administration & their quality control . The dispensaries sell very potent forms of the stuff, as well as brownies etc. They knowingly sell to youth whom they know do NOT have medical issues that would be helped by ingesting pot.

>> If cannabis is to be used medicinally, then it should be regulated like any other drug and only distributed by a licensed physician. We don't need these dime store operations setting themselves up and doing business in our city.

I've seen similar comments on news stories around the state, and they're pervasive enough that such arguments can't be dismissed out of hand. Here's what I think they mean:

-- Non-users of medical cannabis often a) insist it has no medical value, or b) insist that it only exist in pill form and be dispensed at pharmacies.

The quick answer for a): Modern-day anecdotal evidence, thousands of years of cultural and medicinal use, and a growing body of scientific research show that cannabis does have medicinal effects. Arguing to the contrary just makes you look foolish; arguing that much social use takes place under the "medical" label, primarily for legal reasons, is a more accurate description of the problem. Which leads us to ...

The quick answer for b): The FDA and the DEA won't let cannabis be sold at pharmacies, much less let doctors prescribe it and research it, so it's pointless to demand that cannabis be sold only at Walgreens and Rite-Aid. Maybe it's more ironic than pointless, since the underlying sentiment is that government should act to protect the public health by applying safety standards to the medicines and food products we ingest. However you view it, don't blame the patients or their doctors for the feds' refusal to legalize and regulate medical cannabis to your liking. It's not their fault.

-- Specific medical and legal issues aside, comments like this are evidence of a Grand Canyon-sized cultural divide. Many people proclaim their faith in Western medicine, FDA regulation, prescribed and over-the-counter medications produced by pharmaceutical companies, and countless drugstores to dispense those meds to the public. They may not like seeing ads for Cialis and Lipitor on TV, but they don't equate it with drug dealing or profiteering.

Many in the medical cannabis community feel quite differently. They cringe at being called "drug dealers" when Big Pharma makes billions selling pills to people who may not even need them. They understand the complex chemistry of cannabis is synergistic and not easily redacted to pill form, and they also understand that smoked/vaporized cannabis provides more immediate relief with greater dosing control. They fear, with some justification, that Big Pharma and the FDA will ruin all that is good about cannabis through patents and a focus on profits. (It bears note, however, that their objections to profits don't often apply to themselves or other growers.)

While we wait on the FDA to come to its senses -- don't hold your breath -- it's helpful to think of medical cannabis as complementary or alternative medicine that's most commonly consumed in its herbal form or its natural derivatives. You don't hear people demanding that valerian root and echinacea be sold at pharmacies only, and you don't cry because the FDA hasn't analyzed the health claims of diet supplements and "male enhancement" products. You become an informed consumer of anything that you put into your body, and you don't rely on the government to tell you what those things should or should not be.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Nayeli

>>>"Why is it that people have to resort to such name-calling over a difference of opinion?"

It's not a difference of opinion. Most of the facts of marijuana' near harmlessness have been on the table now since Nixon's Shafer Commission of 1972. When you, and other haters, continue to ignore that evidence so you can support the continued persecution of millions of good Americans, that is not a difference of opinion.

That would be the same kind of difference of opinion people had in this country 200 years agon when they were "debating" slavery.

Thankfully, a growing majority of Americans want to end this monstrous persecution of Americans who prefer near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol.

California, and a few other states, will likely bring the curtain down on the American Inquisition next year. How refreshing it will be so that hate-filled people like you will then go crawl back under their rocks.

It isn't a difference of opinion? Then what is it that causes you to claim that I and many millions of Americans like me are in a "propaganda-induced stupor?"

I don't care about your opinions regarding how "safe" marijuana is. The extensive research that I have examined in regard to the subject -- and the overwhelming bulk of all research into the matter -- is a contradiction to what you claim.

And now you are calling me a "hater." How ridiculous is that? I don't "hate" you for your love of marijuana. However, I feel obliged to examine all of your rhetoric and claims. I also feel quite differently about the conclusion of the matter.

Marijuana is an inebriating drug and causes many problems for users and, by secondhand problems, the society for which those users live.

And it is utterly ridiculous to equate your desire to smoke pot for recreation with slavery. I don't even know how you would be so audaciousness as to even utter such a comparison!

As for the "growing majority" of Americans: I'll call you out on that one too. Every poll that I have seen shows that it is difficult to even find enough signatures to put it on the ballot (even with paid signature gatherers) -- let alone enough voters to actually support the measure. The fact is that the vast MAJORITY of Americans oppose the legalization of marijuana.

You keep using words like "propaganda induced stupor," "harmlessness," "majority," "slavery," and "inquisition." It is amazing that you are so unaware that your opinion is in the minority that you use spin words that are so ominous and misleading.

I still have enough faith in voters in California and Palo Alto that they would oppose such a measure.

Just please be a bit less careless with your choice of words. You don't have to agree with us...but don't resort to name-calling either.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 7:07 pm

nayeli

>>>"It isn't a difference of opinion? Then what is it that causes you to claim that I and many millions of Americans like me are in a "propaganda-induced stupor?"

I suppose you can't understand it when you're in that stupor. That you ask that question speaks volumes. I have detailed and documented the facts well here that marijuana is not addictive and near harmless. You have not refuted a single point. You lost, but apparently, don't realize it.

I don't present opinions. I present the facts. If you question any of them then say so. The documentation will be forthcoming.

>>>"The extensive research that I have examined in regard to the subject -- and the overwhelming bulk of all research into the matter -- is a contradiction to what you claim."

Not surprising. There is much junk science created to support the fraudulent marijuana prohibition. NIDA is the primary propaganda factory. But bring some of it here, and we'll examine its veracity - unless you're afraid to, of course.

>>>"And now you are calling me a "hater."

There are only two reasons to support the fraudulent marijuana prohibition. You either make money off the persecution, or you are exercising your bigotry/ignorance. You don't sound like one of the profiteers.

>>>"I feel obliged to examine all of your rhetoric and claims."

Great. So when will you start? I have made many points.

>>>"Marijuana is an inebriating drug"

What do you mean by "inebriating?" That it alters the consciousness? Many things alter consciousness. Mood, rest, food, stress. Do they all "inebriate?" Alcohol consumption impairs thinking, and many people make the mistake of equating that to marijuana. Marijuana is NOT alcohol. Responsible, moderate marijuana consumption enhances thinking, as these consumers testify:

The only problems around marijuana are caused by the fraudulent prohibition. If the majority of people can responsibly (ie problem-free) consume addictive, harmful alcohol, than it is clearly even more likely they will have no problems with marijuana - as is the case. Please present any information you believe is proof of these "many problems."

>>>"and, by secondhand problems, the society for which those users live."

Just the opposite. Mankind has always enjoyed altering his consciousness. Marijuana is not addictive and is FAR less harmful than alcohol. NO ONE has ever died from consuming marijuana. That makes it a BOON to humanity.

>>>"it is utterly ridiculous to equate your desire to smoke pot for recreation with slavery."

No. It is a perfect comparison of two periods in U.S. history where millions of Americans were deprived of their freedom in the cruelest terms.

>>>"As for the "growing majority" of Americans: I'll call you out on that one too."

***"Fifty-five percent of American adults support legalizing marijuana, up from 52 percent in 2010, according to the results of a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll.

Pollsters conducted an online survey of a representative national sample of 1,003 American adults. A solid majority, including 63 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Independents, said that they endorsed the legalization of marijuana.

Forty percent of those polled said that they opposed the idea and five percent were undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent.

The Angus Reid results are slightly higher than those published by other polling firms, such as Gallup, which use random digital dial sampling.

More men (57 percent) than women (53 percent) voiced support for legalizing cannabis. Respondents between the ages of 35 to 54 were most likely to support legalization (57 percent); however, a majority of respondents from every age group polled -- including those age 55 and over -- said that they backed making marijuana legal.

No more than ten percent of respondents said that they favored making any other illicit substance legal."

>>>"Every poll that I have seen shows that it is difficult to even find enough signatures to put it on the ballot"

That statement doesn't make sense. There has been no poll about iniative signatures. And it is clear getting signatures is no problem. That's no wonder since 46 percent of Californians voted to end marijuana prohibition last year. That kind of lame invention is all prohibitionists have.

>>>"You keep using words like "propaganda induced stupor," "harmlessness," "majority," "slavery," and "inquisition."
It is amazing that you are so unaware that your opinion is in the minority that you use spin words that are so ominous and misleading."

LOL! They aren't "spin words. They are just words. You are just helpless in the face of so much truth, and so try to invent reasons why.

>>>"I still have enough faith in voters in California and Palo Alto that they would oppose such a measure."

There goes that ostrich act again. Those who eyes to see know marijuana reform sentiment is growing. Last year we got more than 46 percent of the vote. Next year we'll likely end the counter-productive, fraudulent prohibition.

There is no point in trying to have a rationale discussion with you. You think that you are right and everyone else (including credible, peer-reviewed scientific and medical research) is wrong. And, of course, you feel the need to accuse anyone who disagrees with your views as being in a "stupor."

So, instead of wasting my time trying to reason with someone who doesn't want to reason anything, I will bow out of this fruitless discussion. I suppose that you will continue to shout your loyalty to marijuana smoking like a radical televangelist. However, you may end up causing more residents to oppose your views than you actually realize.

Suggestion: Try to have a happy life WITHOUT resorting to the inebriating effects of illicit drugs like marijuana. If you are unhappy without the use of marijuana...then there is something much more wrong with that picture.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 10:05 pm

nayeli

>>>"There is no point in trying to have a rationale discussion with you."

8^) You have done nothing but run from the truth. Why don't you try to refute just one of the facts I have presented?

>>>"You think that you are right and everyone else (including credible, peer-reviewed scientific and medical research) is wrong."

You persist in your fantasy of denial. Again, I have presented mountains of evidence of marijuana's near harmless nature. You have offered nothing but your prejudice.

>>>"I will bow out of this fruitless discussion."

About time. When you can learn to bring facts instead of hateful propaganda, let me know.

>>>"you may end up causing more residents to oppose your views than you actually realize."

Marijuana reform has nothing to fear from the truth. I have no concern for those who do.

>>>"Try to have a happy life WITHOUT resorting to the inebriating effects of illicit drugs like marijuana."

It is clear you are the one attributing too much power to marijuana. It is just one of life's pleasures/tools. Since it is exponentially less harmful than alcohol, there is no reason to reject it. -- You have much to learn, but you will never get there as long as you refuse to see.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm

Sharon

>>>"Smoking pot will give you lung cancer, damage your immune system and handicap you cognitively."

This is what prohibitionists constantly do - ignore all the facts, and continue shouting the propaganda. I have already proven these claims are false. Go back and read.

>>>"It is dumb but does give an advantage to your competitors"

The nonsense never ends. But that's what prohibitionists are forced to spew, since they have no truth on their side. Studies have shown the more education a person has, the more likely they are to choose near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol. That's logical.

>>>"no one has ever claimed that pot is a performance enhancing drug."

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:02 pm

Resident

>>>"You don't like The Lancet"

Geez. Now you're trying to re-write the history of this forum. I already showed you from your own link the Lancet agreed with me.

>>>"and you don't like National Institute of Drug Abuse."

Why should anyone like an organization created to produce junk science to support the monstrous persecution of millions of good Americans?

>>>"You only read the first sentence of the link I posted from The Lancet."

No. I perused it all. The point is, they did agree with me. Then prohibitionists gained control of the British journal and started pumping out the propaganda. I tell you what. Choose what you think are the two or three strongest points of that article, and we'll take a look at them.

>>>"You are not linking your assertions to reputable scientific studies,"

Wrong, of course. Once again, ALL the major government commissions on marijuana, including the last U.S. one, the Presidential Shafer Commission of 1972, concluded marijuana is less "addictive" than coffee and FAR less harmful than alcohol. The reports of all those major commissions can be read here:

The DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after an exhaustive review of the evidence: "Marijuana, in its natural state, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Also as stated, and is now common knowledge, in all of recorded history, NO ONE has ever died from consuming marijuana. - That makes it safer than aspirin, coffee, and peanuts.

>>>"You have resorted to name calling and impolite discourse."

No. I always, and only, tell it like it is. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Wow -- you have really demonstrated your undying infatuation with that inebriating drug! You presented skewed, half-witted "evidence." When that didn't convince anyone, you have resorted to name-calling. When that still didn't convince anyone, you supplied a list of people who used marijuana, arguing that they ended up with varying levels of success even though they used it at one point (although you fail to mention that many of them regret touching the stuff).

Debating with you is like debating with, well, a stoner. No matter how much empirical evidence we could present or how many rationalized opinions we offer, your sense of logic is skewed to the point that you feel that you are holding some source of enlightenment.

We get it. You love the stuff.

However, it is an inebriating drug and EVERY credible peer-reviewed research on the drug acknowledge that it is a detriment to individuals and society. And, of course, we can all see through the rhetorical smoke and realize that you couldn't care less about "medicinal" marijuana. After all, marijuana provides NOTHING that other regulated medications can provide...except for weird inebriation. Rather, you just like the inebriating effects of pot.

Suggestion (again): Just say no. There are better things to do with your time...and greater "highs" from life that don't require the use of some inebriating drug.

Posted by Matty
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:47 am

Nayeli:

I don't smoke no mo', but let me down my irish coffee for a moment and ask you to address John's point:

"Once again, ALL the major government commissions on marijuana, including the last U.S. one, the Presidential Shafer Commission of 1972, concluded marijuana is less "addictive" than coffee and FAR less harmful than alcohol. "

Posted by Matty
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:55 am

Nope. Not all. Again, don't toke no mo'. But when nayeli spews forth with a disorganized rant including "Debating with you is like debating with, well, a stoner"........

One just wonders why he ignored the salient point: "Once again, ALL the major government commissions on marijuana, including the last U.S. one, the Presidential Shafer Commission of 1972, concluded marijuana is less "addictive" than coffee and FAR less harmful than alcohol. "

Moving on to late morning, off the irish coffee, enjoying a nice spicy bloody mary at the moment.

And waiting for that point to be addressed.

Before lunch.

Cuz after the gimlet to wash down the BLT, it's nap time. Have to rest up for 5:00.

We all know what happens at 5.

We toast ourselves and pat each other on the back for not participating at 4:20.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:38 pm

nayeli

>>>"You presented skewed, half-witted "evidence."

How moronic. I have presented the best evidence available. As in the major government commissions on marijuana. [Thanks, Matty.]

>>>"When that didn't convince anyone, you have resorted to name-calling."

Once again, there was no name-calling. Just speaking the truth that some found hurtful. Tough. It's not near as hurtful as locking people in cages for preferring near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol.

>>>"When that still didn't convince anyone,"

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

>>>"you supplied a list of people who used marijuana, arguing that they ended up with varying levels of success even though they used it at one point"

Thereby debunking these absurd statements that all people who consume marijuana are lazy losers.

>>>"(although you fail to mention that many of them regret touching the stuff)."

Many is a weasel word. Name a few, please.

>>>"Debating with you is like debating with, well, a stoner."

More baseless demonization. Tsk.

>>>"No matter how much empirical evidence we could present or how many rationalized opinions we offer, your sense of logic is skewed to the point that you feel that you are holding some source of enlightenment."

So that's what you think you are doing, eh? How deluded. "Empirical" evidence on this subject is the same thing as anecdotal evidence, which is near worthless. It's just your way of attempting to justify your bigotry. I don't rely on opinion of any kind. I am only concerned with the facts.

>>>"it is an inebriating drug"

We have already discussed your use of the nebulous term, "inebriating." It adds nothing to the discussion. What you are referring to is altered consciousness.

>>>" EVERY credible peer-reviewed research on the drug acknowledge that it is a detriment to individuals and society."

What nonsense. No study has stated that, except for some of the junk science that NIDA and other prohibitionist orgs churn out. Real scientists know better than to mix facts with value judgements.

>>>"you just like the inebriating effects of pot."

You don't know me, so you are talking out of your...... backside. And what if I did? America officialy likes the "inebriating effects" of alcohol, so the milder, non-harmful altered consciousness of marijuana must, by definition, be better.

>>>"There are better things to do with your time."

Perhaps there are. Perhaps there aren't. You, nor anyone else, is in a position to decide that for any other person. And THAT'S where the great evil of marijuana prohibition, and those who support it, exists. Your freedom stops where my nose begins.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm

resident

The Shafer Commission is just one of the many major government commissions on marijuana. I just mentioned to indicate what is meant by "major government commission."

There is a reason the U.S. hasn't performed another one since that landmark 1972 project. It's because they know the results will be the same and they don't want facts getting in the way of their propaganda campaign.

The Canadian Senate performed a similar one in 2002, and came to the same conclusions.

So I am now moronic? This coming from a guy who uses a name "John Thomas?"

As for CREDIBLE evidence (rather than your un-cited claims), I suggest that you open up PubMed and search for "marijuana." The evidence is OVERWHELMING that the inebriating effects of pot on the individual and society is a bad idea.

And, yes, there was plenty of name-calling on your part. Moronic. Stupor. Etc... Of course, a chronically inebriated mind might have some difficulty understanding that this is a pointed slight...or how it might be offensive.

I don't have to continue arguing with a man who has NO EVIDENCE that pot is good for society...or that we need it here. I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that marijuana is dangerous to people (I have seen the effects with my own eyes) -- and it is my opinion (that differs from "John Thomas" or whatever other slang moniker he likes to be known by) that we don't need such garbage in Palo Alto. This is true no matter what a few but very loud pot advocates excessively claim.

You can "alter your consciousness" (aka INEBRIATE YOURSELF) via a pathetic drug like this, but your posts are demonstrating the dangers of what such things do to the mind. But, of course, you consider any study "junk science" if it discourages the use of your beloved marijuana.

I actually feel sorry for you. Life is so much better without having to inebriate yourself and then lie to others by claiming that it is for "medicinal purposes." Life is better when you don't "alter your consciousness" with a drug. A good dose of reality may be all that you need.

Again. No name-calling. Just accurate descriptions. As already noted, and ignored by you, the truth can be hurtful.

>>>"I don't have to continue arguing with a man who has NO EVIDENCE that pot is good for society."

I have clearly demonstrated how any person who switches from addictive, very harmful alcohol to near harmless marijuana, improves their health and life tremendously, as well as that of their family and community.

>>>"I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE"

We have already discussed how anecdotal "information" is worthless in a debate. There are various sound reasons for that.

>>>"your posts are demonstrating the dangers of what such things do to the mind."

How lame. Your bigoted opinions versus the facts I have gathered over the last few decades. No contest.

>>>"you consider any study "junk science" if it discourages the use of your beloved marijuana. "

No. Junk science is that which is "tailored" to support a position as opposed to research that is designed to look for the truth, whereever it may lead. Big difference.

I actually feel sorry for you. Life is so much better without having to inebriate yourself and then lie to others by claiming that it is for "medicinal purposes." Life is better when you don't "alter your consciousness" with a drug. A good dose of reality may be all that you need.

I am done. You have demonstrated the dangers of the lingering inebriating effects of marijuana (what you call "altered consciousness") by your attacks on others and general lack of logic in your very premise. Most of us prefer REALITY -- our REAL consciousness -- over the inebriation that comes from a drug like this. We want the children of our community to be safe from the inebriating and toxic effects of that drug too.

Call us "clueless," "moronic," or "in a stupor" all you want. However, it doesn't change the fact that your very premise is flawed...and it will ultimately fail. Why? I trust that MOST residents of Palo Alto and California have COMMON SENSE and are willing to search PubMed and other CREDIBLE peer-reviewed journals over the skewed claims that you have presented.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm

nayeli

>>>"I am done."

And then continues at length. 8^)

>>>"You have demonstrated the dangers of the lingering inebriating effects of marijuana (what you call "altered consciousness") by your attacks on others and general lack of logic in your very premise."

Nonsense. I bring copious, relevant facts. You bring only bigoted opinion. It's clear where the lack of logic resides.

>>>"Most of us prefer REALITY -- our REAL consciousness -- over the inebriation that comes from a drug like this."

Fine. Nobody is criticizing you for that. In turn, you should not criticize the more than 100 million Americans who have enjoyed altering their consciousness. Especially with a near harmless plant. BTW, are you out advocating the prohibition of alcohol? If not, why not?

>>>"We want the children of our community to be safe from the inebriating and toxic effects of that drug too."

Then you should support ending the counter-productive marijuana prohibition. That is what PUTS marijuana into childrens' hands. Legal, licensed vendors won't sell to children. Plus, countries that have reduced penalties for marijuana have less use than the U.S. The Netherlands has HALF the rate of consumption we have - in all ages. Forbidden fruit is a strong attraction.

>>>"your very premise is flawed...and it will ultimately fail."

You imagine much and demonstrate nothing - but your prejudice.

>>>"I trust that MOST residents of Palo Alto and California have COMMON SENSE and are willing to search PubMed and other CREDIBLE peer-reviewed journals over the skewed claims that you have presented."

I encourage them to go to PubMed also. I want them to consider all the evidence. As the DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after his exhaustive review of the evidence: "Marijuana, in its natural state, is one of the safest therapeutical substances known to man."

There is no escaping the fact that, in all of recorded history, NO ONE has ever died from consuming marijuana. That makes it not only much safer than alcohol, but also safer than aspirin, coffee, and peanuts.

With the polls showing a growing majority of Americans now support ending the fraudulent marijuana prohibition, I am confident Californians will do the right thing and end this horrific persecution of our fellow Americans next year.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:01 pm

Sharon

>>>"Smoking anything is stupid--there are much safer drug delivery systems--like snus for nicotine."

Research has shown smoking marijuana does not cause serious health problems. Especially not cancer or heart disease. Some heavy, chronic smokers get minor lung irritation. This can be easily avoided by consuming marijuana in food, drink, or by vaporization.

***"The consumption of cannabis, even long-term, poses few adverse effects on cognitive performance, according to clinical trial data to be published in the scientific journal Addiction.

Investigators at the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University, Center for Mental Health Research assessed the impact of cannabis use on various measures of memory and intelligence in over 2,000 self-identified marijuana consumers and non-users over an eight-year period. Among cannabis consumers, subjects were grouped into the following categories: 'heavy' (once a week or more) users, 'light' users, 'former heavy' users, 'former light' users, and 'always former'  a category that consisted of respondents who had ceased using marijuana prior to their entry into the study.

Researchers reported: "Only with respect to the immediate recall measure was there evidence of an improved performance associated with sustained abstinence from cannabis, with outcomes similar to those who had never used cannabis at the end point. On the remaining cognitive measures, after controlling for education and other characteristics, there were no significant differences associated with cannabis consumption."

Separate studies [ Web Link ] have previously reported that long-term marijuana use is not associated with residual deficits in neurocognitive function. Specifically, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that chronic cannabis consumers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests. … Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days."

Additionally, studies have also implied that cannabis may be neuroprotective against alcohol-induced cognitive deficits. A 2009 study by investigators at the University of California and San Diego reported that binge drinkers who also used cannabis experienced significantly less white matter damage to the brain as compared to subjects who consumed alcohol alone."

>>>but it does not make sense to put users in jail or support the underground drug economy."

Right. Even more so, considering the above information.

>>>"We are fine with legalizing pot as long as we have a reliable blood test for drivers."

I understand we will have to concede driving restriction initially, because of public fears. But, marijuana is not alcohol and it's consumption doesn't cause accidents as that toxic brew does - for various reasons.

Research has shown marijuana is not as intoxicating as alcohol. More importantly, while alcohol drinkers think they are better drivers and so drive faster and more aggressively, marijuana consumers are very aware of their altered consciousness and correctly judge when they are too impaired to drive - refraining from doing so. If they must, they correctly compensate for their altered state by driving slower and more cautiously. They simply don't put themselves or others in harm's way. This is why marijuana is NOT a significant cause of auto accidents.

Pot increases the incidence of psychosis among teenagers and young adults.

If adults over 21 want to handicap themselves and endanger themselves then we should legalize pot for them as long as they declare it on health and life insurance applications.

Any driver, working lawyer, accountant,physician, soldier, pilot and anyone in possession of a gun should lose their license--in the case of a gun they should face persecution--

Under those sane rules we support legal pot--our main motivation is to end the gang/dealer untaxed profit motive.
In Holland-where pot is legal--the Dutch do not use it--the tourist do--it is a losers drug--males lose their ambition and male hormones-women endanger their fetus.

Pot is a drug for those who are terminally ill, old and retired--heroin should be legal for those groups as well

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm

Sharon

>>>"The same carcinogens are in pot smoke as in tobacco smoke."

While smoked marijuana does contain some of the same toxins as cigarettes or any other kind of smoke, smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer. For two main reasons. One, marijuana consumers inhale a tiny fraction of the smoke that cigarette smokers do. People standing on a busy street corner inhale more toxic smoke than the two or three puffs of marijuana. Second, researchers have found marijuana has anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties.

The preeminent researcher of marijuana and lung disease, UCLA's Dr. Donald Tashkin, conducted investigations over 30 years, initially believing there must be a causal relationship. But he finally concluded that smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or ANY other serious disease.

Additionally, even the minor lung irritation that heavy consumption can cause can be easily avoided by eating, drinking or vaporizing marijuana. No smoke - no harm - at all.

>>>"Pot increases the incidence of psychosis among teenagers and young adults."

No. That was simply a mistaken interpretation of the finding that many schizophrenic patients consumed marijuana. It was simply assumed that marijuana was causing their problems. More research determined that schizophrenic patients were just treating their symptoms with marijuana - most successfully. The few that responded negatively, were seized upon by prohibitionists and blown up into a piece of propaganda that has survived (witness your use of it) long past its debunking.

>>>"In Holland-where pot is legal--the Dutch do not use it--the tourist do"

LOL! Where did you get that idea? The Dutch have moved to exclude tourists from the coffee shops, reserving them solely for Dutch citizens.

>>>"it is a losers drug"

Oh, brother. More simple-minded demonization. You are like nayeli, who argues with her fingers in her ears. I already gave you a long list of successful marijuana consumers. SAMHSA research determined more than 100 million Americans have consumed marijuana. That's near HALF the of-age population. There are an estimated 30 million current consumers. The vast majority consume infrequently - on the weekends or less, and are hard-working, respected members of their communities. They are from all walks of life and loved by the families they support.

Marijuana is as American as apple pie - and much healthier. 8^) - Shame on you for vilifying millions of good Americans!

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:26 pm

nayeli

I feel sorry for you, that you have such low self-esteem, you need to have a group of Americans that you can look down on, simply because they prefer near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol.

What's even sadder is you have no idea how to make your case. You simply shout your bigotry and expect people to believe it as fact.

Posted by And the winner of the long heated debate is...
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 15, 2011 at 1:00 am

...JohnThomas by a long shot, with no more competitors left running in endless circles to rebut what they believe is right because they're too stubborn to accept the fact that THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO SPOON OUT OF THEIR REAR ENDS!

People should be free to consume cannabis, without big brother and the narrow-minded minority trying to discourage them from doing so.

The "feeling sorry for you" sentiment is mutual. It truly breaks my heart that someone is so destitute in life that they prefer an "altered consciousness" from the inebriation created by the drug marijuana over REAL LIFE. Life is too great to be wasted through the inebriating effects of drugs.

You can continue to lie and distort the truth by claiming that "marijuana is harmless," but I suspect that even you are aware of how much you are distorting the truth. Again, I suggest that you (and anyone else who is interested) go to PubMed and view all of the REAL (non-inebriated) research about the drug and its effects on both the individual and society. That way, people can make up their own (non-altered) minds.

It is ridiculous to claim that I am "bigoted" about marijuana. You need to be mature enough realize that there is a difference between being CONCERNED about the possible legalization of an inebriating drug like this...and bigotry.

As a Hispanic woman from a very poor immigrant family, I know what "bigotry" truly is. So don't go around using that word as a defense for your embrace of an inebriating drug that has adversely affected many people...and caused them to choose a lethargic, "altered consciousness" over all of the true pleasures of REAL life.

I wish you the best, John. I just hope that you realize that the best is not found in inebriating effects of drugs (whether drinking too much alcohol in order to get drunk...or the immediate inebriation from marijuana).

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm

nayeli

>>>"It truly breaks my heart that someone is so destitute in life that they prefer an "altered consciousness" from the inebriation created by the drug marijuana over REAL LIFE."

Displaying your gross lack of understanding again. Marijuana does not alter reality or put someone in an 'artificial' life. More importantly, you insist on characterizing marijuana consumers as people who smoke pot constantly. This is just not the case. Marijuana is not addictive, so people can take it or leave it. The VAST majority of consumers partake infrequently - on the weekends or less. So, clearly, they are not "escaping" from anything. A little vacation once in a while, perhaps. 8^)

Again you confuse marijuana with addictive alcohol. Which makes me question again, if prohibition is such a great idea for near harmless marijuana, then why aren't you forming groups to demand prohibition of addictive, much more harmful alcohol?

>>>"You can continue to lie and distort the truth by claiming that "marijuana is harmless,"

No. THAT is a lie. You are distorting. I never said "harmless." I said "near harmless." You are the only dishonest person in this exchange. The truth is all I need.

>>>"I suggest that you (and anyone else who is interested) go to PubMed"

***"The marijuana plant cannabis is known to have therapeutic effects, including improvement of inflammatory processes..... This is the first report of cannabis use in Crohn's disease in humans. The results indicate that cannabis may have a positive effect on disease activity, as reflected by reduction in disease activity index and in the need for other drugs and surgery."

***"The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers.... Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines."

Not bad.

>>>"It is ridiculous to claim that I am "bigoted" about marijuana."

No. Your bigoted rants are all on record here. There's no point in denying them. They go so far that you support putting people in cages who prefer near harmless marijuana over addictive, very harmful alcohol.

>>>"the best is not found in inebriating effects of drugs (whether drinking too much alcohol in order to get drunk...or the immediate inebriation from marijuana).

Interesting. So moderate use of addictive, very harmful alcohol is okay to you, but moderate use of near harmless marijuana is not. There's no other explanation for that than bigotry.

>>>"I suggest we stop discussions with John Thomas."

There it is. The next stage in prohibitionist strategies. When you lose the arguments, attempt to censor. Typical.

>>>"He is obviously a non-Palo Altan"

This is not a Palo Alto issue, but a national one. You should see someone about that tunnel vision.

>>>"and probably a pothead"

And personal attacks. Also typical of prohibitionist dishonesty.

>>>"The sites he links are all pot promoting sites"

Wrong. I just cited PubMed. And the sites don't matter when they post UNALTERED information such as the major government commissions on marijuana. Shooting the messenger won't work here.

>>>"He calls anything else junk science, so he does not have an open mind on anything he doesn't like."

Of course I do. I have been studying this issue for 30 years. All the "research" purporting serious harms of marijuana has turned out to be bogus. You apparently know this, since you have not offered even ONE study to support such fallacious claims.

I think that you're right. I suppose that JohnThomas's rants can only make logical sense if you are A.) Willing to believe that all other research studies are part of some vast conspiracy to spew "bigotry" on inebriating drugs like marijuana; and, B.) Willing to think that life is horrible enough to be more fulfilling when you "alter your consciousness" (aka inebriate yourself with a drug).

There is no use trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Thanks for the advice! I will ignore this poor guy from now on. Thankfully, I trust that most Palo Alto residents are intelligent enough to see through all of his radical, rhetorical smoke to the heart of the matter.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 2:45 pm

nayeli

>>>"JohnThomas's rants can only make logical sense if you are A.) Willing to believe that all other research studies are part of some vast conspiracy to spew "bigotry" on inebriating drugs like marijuana"

LOL! As if I have not presented mountains of objective research showing marijuana is not addictive and FAR less harmful than alcohol. You, on the other hand, have not presented even ONE study that supports your ridiculous idea of substantial harm caused by marijuana. How fun it must be to argue with your fingers in your ears.

>>>"Willing to think that life is horrible enough to be more fulfilling when you "alter your consciousness"

Pathetic. Does cake have to be "horrible" to be more fulfilling when enjoyed with ice cream?

Cake doesn't inebriate you with the first bite. Alcohol doesn't inebriate you with the first taste. People don't drink to GET DRUNK. Yet EVERYONE who smokes pot becomes inebriated in a drunken stupor...for that very purpose.

You really need to get off the stuff. Life is so much better without it!

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm

nayeli

nayeli

>>>"Cake doesn't inebriate you with the first bite."

Sure it does. You don't know how sugar alters physiology and thought processes? Further, it was the metaphor that was important, of course. To spell it out for you - one thing doesn't have to be "horrible" to be improved on by another. As in, life and marijuana. More than one hundred millions Americans can vouch for it.

>>>"Alcohol doesn't inebriate you with the first taste."

Wow. Here comes the denial. Of course it does. Where on earth did you get that idea?

LOL!!! Marijuana consumers become drunk. That's a new one. What utter denial and nonsense. Consumers of both moderate their consumption, of course. It's even easier with non-addictive, near harmless marijuana.

Get used to it. Marijuana's superior health aspects make it the future. Run along with your fellow dinosaurs.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm

notatalll

>>>"If we use mj to get high and feel happiness,if the happiness can be obtained through this method so easily,then everyone could just seek those ,and we will not have motivation to seek real happiness."

Just like as happened with alcohol, right? When we repealed alcohol prohibition in 1933, the country ground to a halt because they had all lost their motivation. Too bad. The U.S. could have been a contender. 8^)

Really? Now you resort to mocking my name? How...juvenile. Didn't you say that you "researched" this for over 30 years? Wow!

If you could, I think that you would try to convince everyone that the inebriating effect of marijuana doesn't exist -- and that the "altered consciousness" is a miracle (rather than a drug-infused stupor). I think that you would also try to convince us that it is filled with vitamins and nutrients and cures diseases.

Hmmm. Can you buy this snake oil in bottles too?

No thanks. I prefer REALITY over whatever inebriation that a pathetic drug like marijuana can cause.

Posted by JohnThomas
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2011 at 10:29 pm

nayeli

>>>"Now you resort to mocking my name?"

Uh-oh. You are losing it. Where do imagine I did that? That's YOUR forte, remember?

>>>"I think that you would try to convince everyone that the inebriating effect of marijuana doesn't exist -- and that the "altered consciousness" is a miracle"

Why not? Millions have called aspirin a "miracle drug," and science is showing marijuana is exponentially more palliative than that "wonder" drug. The fact remains, the benefits are myriad, and still being discovered - while the negative side effects are near zero. When you think about, it is astounding.

>>>"I think that you would also try to convince us that it is filled with vitamins and nutrients and cures diseases."

No vitamins, but the science is clear that it does, indeed, stop the progression of many diseases, and reverses some.

***"During my initial foray into this literature I discovered, to my astonishment, that I had to seriously question what I believed I knew about cannabis. As I began to appreciate that what I thought I understood was largely based on myths, old and new, I realized how little my training in science and medicine had protected me against this misinformation. I had become not just a victim of a disinformation campaign, but because I was a physician, one of its agents as well....

After the publication of Marihuana Reconsidered I was often asked about my personal experience with cannabis. Some questioners were skeptical when I replied that I had never used it: " What, you wrote a book about marijuana and you never experienced it!....

[Upon trying it] The first thing I noticed, within a few minutes of smoking, was the music; it was "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." This music was not unfamiliar to me, as it was a favorite of my children, who constantly filled the house with the sound of the Beatles, the Grateful Dead and other popular rock bands of the time. They frequently urged me to get my "head out of classical music and try listening to rock." It was impossible not to listen to rock when they were growing up, but it was possible for me, as it was for many parents of my generation, not to hear it. On that evening I did "hear" it. It was for me a rhythmic implosion, a fascinating new musical experience! It was the opening of new musical vistas, which I have with the help of my sons continued to explore to this very day.

A year later, I related this story to John Lennon and Yoko Ono, with whom I was having dinner. (I was to appear the next day as an expert witness at the Immigration and Naturalization Service hearings that Attorney General John Mitchell had engineered as a way of getting them out of the country on marijuana charges after they became involved in anti-Vietnam War activities.) I told John of this experience and how cannabis appeared to make it possible for me to "hear" his music for the first time in much the same way that Allen Ginsberg reported that he had "seen" Cézanne for the first time when he purposely smoked cannabis before setting out for the Museum of Modern Art. John was quick to reply that I had experienced only one facet of what marijuana could do for music, that he thought it could be very helpful for composing and making music as well as listening to it."

No one is asking what you prefer. You have trailed off topic, don't put your opinion into a debate where you're TRYING to prove that cannabis users are inferior to non cannabis users and that people having the freedom to do what they would like to do shouldn't be allowed. You're supposed to be using something called 'facts' and 'evidence' to support your absurd point on the subject. And now you have nothing left to say, yet you're still trying to insult JohnThomas calling him a pothead because he's standing up for the rights of Americans. You have too much time on your hands. Here's a suggestion, why don't you quit sitting behind the computer and wasting your time on a debate that YOU LOST and enjoy your realistic and cannabis free life. If life is so good then why are you stuck sitting on this news article? No one is suggesting that you should try it, so quit preaching your nonsense and act like a grown up.

Posted by Kevin
a resident of another community
on Feb 6, 2012 at 12:49 am

I take it the proposition being debated has long since died, but I still feel compelled to say my piece, if I even alter the opinions of one person I can call it a good day.

I look at this debate and I see a complete waste of time. I don't live in Palo Alto, I'm not even American, I stumbled here via research into related issues. I am from a country where people go to the gallows for 200 grams for personal consumption. And for me to read comments like: "I don't want to smell smoke in my neighborhood, cause then I gotta go close the window...", I just feel embarrassed for you. Don't you have cars and industries in Palo Alto, or are you an Amish community?

You people have a good thing going, the freedoms to choose and to a certain extent govern yourselves - the freedom to blaze without the constant threat of death by hanging is already heaven by my standards. So stop horsing around; if it's a freedom that half of your town support then apply some pressure, give the measure some momentum. Honestly, your opposition literally consists of carbon-copied responses from a 1950's "devil-weed" era.

In the 10,000 years of its worldwide usage there have been 0 documented cases of death due to Cannabis ill-side-effect.

In 2008 The Journal of The American Medical Association published an article that showed every year 100,000-200,000 cancer patients die not from the cancer, but from malnutrition.

Munchies isnt a joke, its a blessing for millions.

People with M.S., Anxiety, Depression, Cancer, Glaucoma, ADHD, Chronic Pain, PTSD, PMS, Epilepsy or hundreds of other ailments can substantially benefit from the ingestion of medical cannabis.

Since the enactment of our medical cannabis laws here in California our crime rate has plummeted to a 40 year low.

Los Angeles has the most collectives in the entire world and their violent crime rate has diminished and reached a 50 year low.

People contended that youth usage would increase if we allowed medical cannabis collectives but the truth of the matter is over 10 years after we passed Proposition 215..according to our own State Attorney Generals Office..our youth usage reached its level since the office began recording statistics over 3 decades ago.

Strawberries, peanuts and pen caps kill more Americans every year than the ill-side-effects of Cannabis has since the beginning of its existence.

Please vote with intellectualism, compassion and mercy on Tuesday.

Allow those who benefit from this miraculous plant the ability to obtain it in a safe, affordable and practical manner.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.